When it comes to choosing a co-founder, I’ve learned there’s no hard and fast path to success. In fact, I think most entrepreneurs would agree that finding and choosing an excellent co-founder is more of an art than a science. That being said, below are some tried and true ways to set yourself up for success.
Hang around the hoop
Before we even begin discussing what to look for in a co-founder, we have to talk about how you find potential candidates in the first place. My best advice to entrepreneurs has always been to hang around the hoop. For those of you who aren’t basketball-fluent, the phrase means that to have any success, you’ve got to put yourself in the best position to score—around the hoop. Your hoop is anywhere good talent might be found: meetups, conferences, pitch competitions, Slack channels . . . you get the idea. Colleges are also great resources; you can reach out to computer science professors and leaders of student entrepreneurial and innovation clubs. If you have a good idea, can tell a story, and talk to enough people, the odds of finding folks who might be interested in joining your venture are in your favor.
Look for complementary skills
This may seem like a no-brainer, but people frequently get it wrong. Many founders are drawn to people with professional backgrounds similar to their own because they already speak the same language or because they’re often in the same spaces. While it’s certainly important to gel with your co-founder, it’ll benefit you a lot more, down the line, to have someone whose strengths differ from your own.
The most common example of this is the classic nontechnical–technical co-founder pairing. The combination has many upsides because it lets the two individuals focus the bulk of their attention on different aspects of their start-up’s growth and success. But let’s say you already have a solid CTO and aren’t necessarily looking for a technical co-founder—what then? Find someone with complementary soft skills. If you’re not a stellar presenter, choose someone who can wow a room of investors. If you’ve mostly worked in silo-style roles across your career, seek out someone with team-leading experience. It’s more than OK to duplicate a similarity here and there (after all, you want to have some common ground to fall back on), but being aware of your own weaknesses and finding a way to address them with your choice of a co-founder is wise.
Get input from leaders you trust
Let’s say you’ve got a few people in mind as potential co-founders but you’re not sure how to evaluate them for fit. A few years ago, I was in exactly that position. I felt like I was on a hamster wheel and desperately trying to get off. I realized that determining whether a candidate was a good fit was much harder than I had expected. At the time, I was subleasing office space from an EO Atlanta member. He’d been an entrepreneur for almost two decades. I regularly talked with him about things I was trying to figure out, and those informal conversations were invaluable. When I told him about my problem, he made an amazing offer: “How about I interview one of your candidates and you sit in? I can show you better than I can tell you.” I happily agreed. I was able to watch him in action, and I learned a ton—especially about how to figure out when someone isn’t the right fit.If you and your potential candidates are having conversations or doing things together to get to know one another, consider inviting someone to join you—perhaps an experienced entrepreneur. If you’ve raised capital from credible investors, consider getting their input, too. Whomever you ask to join you, make sure they have a track record of evaluating talent or some experience with entrepreneurial partnerships. Your goal is to have them compensate for your blind spots.
These three recommendations won’t drop the perfect co-founder into your lap, but they will help you whittle your options down to a few strong front-runners. At the end of the day, selecting the right person comes down to who you feel that difficult-to-describe “click” with when you’re sharing your vision. Choosing an excellent co-founder isn’t an impossible task, and it certainly is an important one when it comes to building a company that will succeed under your and your co-founder’s leadership.
For more expert advice on building and scaling your startup, check out our event library and Field Notes.
Founders’ most frequent pain points arise from pushing product development without speaking to their current customers.
Initially, convincing founders to pause product development to conduct customer interviews is a tough sell. To them, it often feels like rendering their current ‘baby’ useless. But I know that ~40% of startups fail because they lack product-market fit, which means building something people actually want is the bare minimum.
Personally, I love talking to users because I find people endlessly fascinating. But, as a founder, I found that formalizing our user interview process enabled us to quantify and track metrics of success and inform how we built Levantr.
Before building your product, start with ethnographic customer interviews. These are often just called customer interviews, but I like adding the adjective ‘ethnographic’ to it because that’s exactly what you are doing! You are trying to observe the users in their natural environment and see how they usually circumvent or deal with the problem you are trying to solve.
Through these interviews, you’re trying to get a glimpse into how people behave and why, so you can create and test more accurate hypotheses about what your users actually want.
There is a difference between people who would use your product and people desperate for it. You must find the latter for your MVP because they will become your cult following.
To start, consider the following:
FIELD NOTES:
At my startup Levantr—a collaborative travel planner—our customer segment was obviously people who like traveling, which is… a majority of the global population. So, we narrowed it down to people who enjoy planning, i.e., the people who create color-coded, multi-tabbed spreadsheets and send you SurveyMonkey forms to rally the crew. Of course, we all know at least one person like that.
These Type-A travelers not only travel frequently but think about traveling all the time. What does that mean? They follow travel blogs and are active in FB groups. They were our cult.
First, look for interviewees on platforms like respondent.io, UserInterviews.com, and Askable. If your targets aren’t showing up on research platforms, try creating job postings asking your target profile to participate in a paid study or using social media platforms like LinkedIn to find target profiles to reach out to directly.
When offering money in exchange for interviews, you’ll inevitably attract some bad apples willing to lie to qualify for the study for the fee. However, you can weed them out using carefully crafted screener questions.
For example, here are some of the questions I used to screen Levantr interviewees:
FIELD NOTES:
Notice that #4 asks if they will show us their previous itinerary—this weeds out people who pretend to be active planners to qualify. I also ask how they usually get ideas to make sure we find people who think about travel frequently even if they are not traveling.
The last question is intentionally left open-ended to test how much detail they included. You want to find chatty interviewees who will quickly give you the most detailed insights.
Conducting interviews remotely is more accessible, cheaper, and allows you to record your sessions. Recording not only helps you stay focused on the conversation without having to take notes, but investors love to see footage from your user interviews. Plus, you are not limited geographically, which removes any local bias.
The #1 rule of user interviews is to never ask them what solution they want directly. Instead, focus on understanding their problems, how they approach them today, and, most importantly, why. Your job is to observe and ask users to elaborate when they say something interesting.
For example, here’s how we structured our 1-hour user interviews:
FIELD NOTES:
#3 is critical. It helps them travel back into a context relevant to your conversation and visualize the problem. Again, you’re triggering the emotions they felt during their last encounter, resulting in more accurate insights. This way, they’ll explain their process and show you how they perform the task.
Now that you collected your user feedback, you must decipher the implications and translate them into a product vision.
For example, here’s a list of steps I take to interpret interview insights while minimizing my own biases:
FIELD NOTES:
One of the recurring themes during Levantr’s pre-product ethnographic interviews was the importance of visuals in travel planning.
So, when we built the Levantr marketplace, we made sure that all the tiles/cards for our idea boards and itineraries included pictures. Plus, we knew that prioritizing the visual appeal of Levantr’s branding/marketing was critical to creating a sticky platform our customers love to use.
To close, I’ll leave you all with my favorite example of ethnographic interviews gone wrong: “The Pepsi Challenge.”
Pepsi had a campaign where people taste-tested Pepsi and Coke while blindfolded, then indicated their preference. And surprise, surprise, Pepsi was the winner. Meanwhile, Coke was extremely worried because their internal studies showed similar results. So, in response, they created ‘New Coke’ to mimic Pepsi’s sweeter taste and introduced it to the market with great confidence.
‘New Coke’ failed spectacularly, and Coke’s customers were pissed. But why?
The sip tests didn’t take into consideration the environment in which people drink Coke. People don’t take just one sip when drinking soda; they drink a whole can of Coke with a meal, at a sporting event, at the movies, etc. In the actual use-case contexts, people prefer the crisper taste of Coke over the saccharine sweetness of Pepsi or ‘New Coke’—except in small, sippable doses. The theory is that a home-use test would’ve yielded a very different outcome.
Coke recovered from the ‘New Coke’ fiasco because they’re a well-established brand with loyal customers and money allocated for trial-and-error product development. But startups don’t have the same luxury. That’s why investing a few hundred bucks now to talk to your target audience through a contextual inquiry.
So, what can founders learn from Coke? First and foremost, the quality of your user research will determine your ability to build the product of your target audiences’ dreams. How you ask your research questions matters: carefully consider your word choice and the context of both your interviewees and the problem you’re trying to solve. Finally, listen to your customers before rolling out a ‘New Coke’ product development that nobody wants.
For more expert advice on building and scaling your startup, check out our event library and Field Notes.
As an investor, I’ve seen a lot of startup pitches—the good, the bad, and the ugly. And as a former founder, I feel for them. I know how daunting it can be to take the vision in your head, condense it into a clear explanation, and get others to quickly believe in it too. Early on, I also struggled to succinctly communicate the vision I had for my company.
At Outlander VC, I combine my experiences as a founder and investor to help our portfolio companies perfect their pitches. These are some of the best tips and tricks I’ve learned along the way to prepare, perfect, and present your pitch so that investors want to hear it.
When you’re raising capital in the early stages, there isn’t much of a company to pitch yet. It’s just a few folks, an idea, and maybe an MVP. You probably don’t have customers, users, or meaningful quantitative data to inform the investment decision.
Early-stage investing decisions come down to evaluating how the founders answer the following questions, based on Outlander’s Founder Framework model:
Ultimately, early-stage investors are looking for a founding team worth betting on. Early-stage founders with compelling answers to the above questions demonstrate they have the intelligence, vision, character, and ability to execute necessary to build on their thesis and scale it into an industry-disrupting powerhouse.
Helping early-stage founders perfect their pitches, I’ve noticed a common disconnect: passionate founders who eat, sleep, and breathe their startup perceive the cadence of their pitch as clear, confident, and compelling—but investors often hear it differently.
For example, I was recently working with a founder on his pitch. He has the big vision and passion necessary to convince investors, but his delivery needed fine-tuning. Seeing is believing, so I suggested he record his next pitch and send me the recording.
The next time we spoke, he told me that he’d realized, watching the recording, that he’d had no idea how his pitch sounded. With the recording, he could self-critique and correct every part of his delivery he didn’t like. He could sit on the other side of the pitch deck and, for the first time, see exactly what his potential investors would see.
We decided to take this exercise a step further. Instead of booking time with peers to get their feedback, he sent them links to his recorded pitch. Recording his pitch practice worked well for several reasons:
Recording yourself isn’t novel—it’s a time-tested tool, and it’s still highly effective. Plus, with new WFH tools like Loom’s simultaneous camera, microphone, and desktop recording technology, sharing a virtual pitch has never been easier. If you want to perfect your pitch, consider tapping “record” first!
As I said, I’ve watched a lot of pitches. The most painful to watch are those where the investor struggles to understand what the founder is trying to communicate. But I’ve helped founders whose pitch crashed and burned in the morning regroup, adjust their approach, and nail the same pitch a few hours later.
The difference? At the beginning of the second meeting, the founders sought to understand their audience by asking a few simple questions, which allowed them to deliver the pitch in the way the audience preferred. The change was small but powerful.
Here are a few questions founders can ask to understand their audience:
Understanding the audience goes a long way toward helping founders communicate effectively and gain support. The questions above will help accomplish that, but it’s by no means an exhaustive list. Plenty of other questions would also work. Regardless of what you ask, I’d limit it to two or three questions.
Now that you’ve perfected your pitch, we want to see it! Here’s what you need to know:
Outlander VC is inviting the most innovative early-stage tech startups in the United States to out-vision, outsmart, and outpitch the competition at OutPitch 2.0! Apply now to compete for $100,000 investment from Outlander VC during the live event on December 7, 2021.
For more expert advice on building and scaling your startup, check out our event library and Field Notes.
On April 23, 2005, ‘Me at the Zoo’ was the first video ever uploaded to a then little-known site called Youtube. This moment was an inflection point that precipitated the explosions of video-first social media services over the next 15 years: TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. Moreover, it was a harbinger of much broader changes to come.
COVID-19 altered the world in many ways; being locked in our homes forced us to rethink how we communicate, work, and socialize. It has also led to a tectonic shift in how businesses operate. COVID has been the accelerant that has led to the decentralization of the global workforce.
This is not a discrete or temporary event. As the pandemic recedes and the world begins to regain an air of normalcy, many businesses have been compelled by their employees to rethink the very concept of ‘the office.’ The ideas put forth by managers for generations—such as productivity tied to the physical place of work—have now been debunked as relics of the industrial age. This shift did not transpire out of some charitable concern for employee welfare but, instead, driven by sheer economics and by employees refusing to work in conditions that negatively affect their lives without clear benefits to the productivity of their employers.
Robotic process automation is the early precursor of this ethos. With the automation of basic digital workflows and no-code environments, the automated back-office tasks increase productivity and free employees of time-consuming, remedial tasks. Companies such as UI-Path, Automation Anywhere, and others have trailblazed no-code automation tools that enable workers to automate their daily tasks. Much like the wheel or the steam engine, these tools shift the burden of work off of people onto machines. However, while videos have become ever more present in work, leveraging the information trapped within them has not been possible until recently.
The rapid development of machine vision and similar technologies propelled by the expansion of deep learning systems has primed the world for automations that use video as a proxy for many tasks that otherwise would be impossible to capture.
From sales information in Zoom presentations to quality control on semiconductor manufacturing lines, video data is ripe with hooks that can be used as proxies for automation.
Utilizing video data has never been more relevant. COVID-19 not only reframed the way we work but also the way we consume information on a day-to-day basis. Being quarantined in our homes forced us to consume our news, connect with the world, and seek entertainment not through the lens of personal interaction but primarily through videos broadcasted live and published on social media.
This drastic change in information consumption has led to a media landscape ripe for “disinformation” to propagate and pass into our society completely unchecked. Through a combination of state-sponsored misinformation and individual bad actors, it’s become incredibly difficult to understand what is true and what is not, and video is the most compelling piece of many disinformation arcs. It’s becoming increasingly easy for a maligned actor to edit a piece of video, remove valuable context, or share a video post from an entirely separate location with a leading caption and have their post go viral.
To address this type of disinformation, the ability to attribute provenance at scale is crucial. Consequently, the ability to collect live, social, and archival content is necessary for anyone attempting to validate whether or not a piece of content is original, manipulated, or has appeared across other channels. Finally, there is a need for automated tools to analyze and uncover strategies, patterns, and methods used by these actors in their narratives.
Large platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Microsoft have already begun developing in-house tools for tackling things like DeepFakes. Smaller organizations, however, are lagging behind in this effort, as they lack the expertise required to develop such systems.
For example, we developed a solution for the Association for Securing Democracy’s Hamilton 2.0 Dashboard to analyze large amounts of media content—both text and video—to comprehensively look at the information landscape created by state-sponsored media outlets. These types of technologies are the first step in a long journey towards a robust understanding of the current media landscape.
These are the problems that we at Vidrovr are focused on solving. We build AI tools for unlocking insights trapped in unstructured multimedia and video to drive data visibility, understand the video information landscape, and enable business automations. Learn more about our solutions at https://vidrovr.com.
We’re always looking for partners to help on this journey, so please reach out to our team at contact@vidrovr.com. Plus, we’re hiring for our marketing, sales, and engineering teams! If you think you might be a good fit or want to learn more about our vision for the future, we’d love to hear from you.
Forming a new startup is an exciting time filled with optimism and potential. Finding the right people for your team, landing some early investors, and building out your product are all thrilling milestones. But just as important (if not quite as thrilling) are some key legal fundamentals that you’ll have to nail early on.
Every startup needs to get these tasks right at the beginning; failure to do so will lead to difficult, protracted, and costly problems. I should know, my first job after being a partner at a big law firm was cleaning stuff up at Oculus, so it could do its Series A.
Despite legal forms you can find on the internet or from DIY websites such as Clerky promising to make forming a startup easy, more often than not, these seven items are not done right:
We have found that systems, processes, knowledge and counseling, good decision-making – and then recording decisions in such a way as to be able to automatically translate those decisions into legal paperwork – can solve 90% of these problems (and avoid $100,000 cleanups later).
In broad terms, you’ll need:
As you see, it’s a lot of work to take on those seven things, especially if you’re a first-time founder – but they’re absolutely critical to your future success. For that reason, we put together StartupProgram.com, or SUP, so that our clients can efficiently and cost-effectively get these nuts-and-bolts items checked off their to do lists. We’d love to help your startup, too.
Join us on 6/9 at 12 pm ET for the first of our quarterly Legal Lab learning series and our monthly, 1:1 Legal Lab Office Hours with Dan Offner! 🧪
Over the years, I’ve had many opportunities to move outside the Southeast. I repeatedly heard that if I wanted to work with the brightest minds at the best organizations, I’d need to relocate. I wasn’t convinced of that logic then, and I’m not now.
I’m a Louisiana native. I moved to Atlanta for my first job after college. When I left corporate America to start my company, I had to decide where I wanted my company to be based. New York and San Francisco were on the list, but after weighing the pros and cons of all my options I decided I wanted to be in a place where I could thrive personally as well as professionally. I wanted to be somewhere I could see myself staying for the long haul (like, until I’m an old man in a rocking chair). I wanted to be in a place that felt like home. I wanted to be in the South. I decided to stay in Atlanta.
Little did I know the impact that decision would have. I had unknowingly signed up for a front-row seat at a massive transformation and tech uprising. Atlanta’s next class of great entrepreneurs were just coming into their own and a lot of them were technical. I found myself surrounded by peers who introduced me to a whole new world. They helped me, a nontechnical founder, understand how technology could make the impossible possible. I listened, learned, and incorporated it all into my company.
Fast-forward. This southern tech uprising created many high-growth companies with eight-figure revenue. Companies like BBQGUYS (nine figures), Calendly, CallRail, Fleetio, GreenLight, and LeaseQuery, to name just a few. Each a testament to the caliber of entrepreneurs who call the South home. When I look back, I’m deeply impressed by what these entrepreneurs accomplished. There wasn’t much community when most of them started out and early-stage capital was hard to come by. Yet they still managed to build amazing companies.
The community is bustling now. Accelerators, coworking spaces, conferences, and demo days are all over the South. And there are more venture funds, such as Outlander, writing checks much earlier. All of this has created a supportive and startup-friendly environment in which founders get the support and capital they need earlier so they can go further, faster. I’m optimistic about where the region is headed. I see a not-so-distant future when founders from the region turn their wildest dreams into reality and change the world. The last decade was great, but I believe it’s only a taste of what’s to come.
They say timing is everything, and that’s so true. I believe the time is now for the South to shine, and I can’t think of a better place to be. It’s wonderful to be in a place where I, along with the whole Outlander team, can help smart people build terrific companies. Doing it in a place we all love and can call home is the icing on the cake!
During the last seven years of my investing in startups, I’ve had the chance to meet a lot of really smart people with some interesting ideas. Many of them had a minimum viable product (MVP), several had only a PowerPoint, and a few had just a story to tell about the problem they wanted to solve. Some of the best investments I’ve made have come from taking a risk to back a founder who couldn’t yet “check the boxes” for what more traditional venture capitalists want to see before they will invest.
I’m so proud to have been an early supporter and investor of companies like PartPic, that struggled in the beginning to find outside investors who didn’t see the potential for this startup that made it easier to search for and order parts using computer-vision technology on their smartphone. Yet, once they had a few backers to fund an amazing founding team and their bold vision, were able to scale, grow, prove out their idea and then exit via an acquisition by Amazon in 2016. And EMRGY, a startup that delivers clean, reliable hydropower without the need for construction or dams. When I first met their founder, Emily Morris, she had a slide deck and a clear, compelling strategy for how she wanted to transform the hydropower technology space. I was immediately hooked, and made an investment, even before production started. Now, several years later, they have distributed hydropower arrays in operation across several sites in the US and have secured global distribution partnerships.
That’s why I’m so passionate about the opportunity to provide this type of early-stage funding with Outlander VC.
According to the US Business Formation Statistics (BFS), in 2019, 3.48 million applications to start a business in the US were submitted – a more than 40% growth rate from 2010. And 2020, even with the economic uncertainty triggered by COVID-19, is on pace to far exceed 2019 numbers. Through September 2020, 3.5 million new business applications were made in the US, with almost 50% of those new companies starting in the Southeast.
That’s a lot of companies needing capital to get from the idea stage to successfully launching a new product or solution in the market. Most of these companies will rely on personal savings or investments from friends and family to get started. Others will look to outside investors for their capital. But getting that outside money can be difficult at this stage of a company.
This is where Outlander VC comes in. Our mission is to be the earliest investors in the best technology startups across the Southeast.
Why early-stage? Let’s look beyond the obvious answer that early-stage startup investing offers potential for enormous growth and outsized returns relative to larger, more mature companies.
We also know that, for an early-stage company to even be considered for funding from traditional investors, they need to prove growth metrics and demonstrate the real probability of a high valuation exit. This can make it extremely difficult for early-stage companies to get the required capital to bring on the necessary resources to make it through the “Valley of Death”.
Our team at Outlander is made up of experienced investors who know how to invest in people and ideas even before they have metrics and revenue. And nothing excites us more than when we find great founders with huge ideas in a space where we can assist them in achieving their goals.
Every investment we make takes significant time, both in terms of the analysis we complete before the investment and the additional value we provide after the investment.
Why the Southeast? More than 2,300 startups call the Southeast home. Despite economic stability, a rapidly growing, diverse talent pool, and public-private emphasis on innovation, less than 7% of venture capital funding found its way into the region in the last several years.
And, as Leura Craig shared in our last blog post, we knew we could have a significant impact. In the Southeast, founders need early-stage capital, high-quality mentorship, and access to the major tech hubs to build partnerships, to find customers and, most importantly, to raise later-stage capital.
What does early-stage mean to Outlander VC? Generally speaking, it means a founding team (located in the Southeastern US) with a vision, MVP, and who has raised less than $2M in venture capital.
How do we select the companies in which we invest? We have created a proprietary founder analysis system that allows us to efficiently assess the quality of the founding team. And, through our years of experience in investing, we’ve seen that founder quality is the most important assessment factor in an early-stage deal.
Want to learn more about Outlander VC and our approach to early-stage investing, signup for our newsletter here to stay in touch with our team.
In my prior posts, I gave an overview of how entrepreneurs and investors can make the most of AngelList, the top online platform for startup investing.
In it I recommended that both entrepreneurs and new angel investors focus on using AngelList’s syndicates as their method of accessing high-growth startup investments. A syndicate is an investment vehicle that acts like an online angel group led by one lead investor who sources and manages the deals. Investors can request to join a syndicate, see the deal flow, and either invest automatically in every deal to build a balanced portfolio or just participate in the deals they like. In exchange they pay the syndicate lead carry for having found strong deals and for being the point person who coordinates the syndicate’s interaction with the entrepreneurs they invest in.
Since the feature launched on the platform last year, syndicates have become the defacto way to invest on AngelList because the lead investors curate high-quality investment opportunities, often bringing deals to their AngelList backers that would not have appeared on AngelList otherwise (because the startup founders weren’t planning to fundraise online).
To shed more light on the rise of syndicates and what it takes to be a great syndicate lead, I reached out to David Booth who oversees syndicate operations at AngelList.
EP: What exactly is a syndicate lead and how do you become one?
DB: AngelList syndicates enable access to capital for people with high-quality deal-flow and access to high quality deals for people with capital to invest.
The individuals who find and share deals are the syndicate leads. In exchange for offering the deal up to online investors, the syndicate lead gets paid via “carried interest,” a share of any eventual profit from the investment. Leads will typically be experienced angel investors, technical founders of startups, or early hires at successful companies who may not have access to massive amounts of capital (and don’t want full-time VC roles) but who are experienced, well-connected, and excellent at recognizing talented entrepreneurs within their network.
EP: What are the expectations and responsibilities of a syndicate lead?
DB: Syndicate leads must first be experienced angel investors in their own right. Our co-founder Naval summarizes the qualities of an angel effectively: The three things that make a good angel (and thus syndicate lead) are i) access to capital, ii) high quality, proprietary deal flow and iii) good judgement.
A syndicate lead must be putting their own “skin in the game” – investing a material amount of their own capital. They are required to clearly disclose any conflict of interest or prior involvement in the companies they lead investments in, and be transparent about which deals they syndicate. The lead will act as liaison between the company and his or her backers, adding value to the company, and passing on information where appropriate. While leads don’t need to share inside information about a company with their backers, it’s best practice to keep them updated on how the company is doing, and a startup can benefit greatly from leveraging this network of stakeholders.
EP: How do you vet new syndicate leads? Do you proactively recruit people to become leads?
DB: We look for individuals with relevant experience and a proven track record as an angel investor. They might be successful founders or tech executives, VCs, or specialists in a very specific sector. We are also seeing an increasing number of VC firms using the syndicates product to run single deal funds, inviting LPs and investors from their networks to invest where they have excess pro rata rights. To date, leads have been predominantly based in the SF Bay Area, but we have started seeing an increasing number from outside Northern California.
Our team works with prospective syndicate leads well before they ever put their first deal on AngelList, helping vet opportunities and gauge which will generate interest from online investors. We also look at who they are bringing into the syndicate from their own network as backers of their syndicate; if they supposedly have good deal flow and a good network, but no one they know wants to invest with them, that’s a red flag.
EP: What differentiates the better syndicate leads in your experience?
DB: The ultimate judge of a good syndicate lead is “who is making the best returns.” However while there have been some stand-out deals on the platform, this is not easy to judge with less than 24 months of data.
One thing that is clear is that you shouldn’t judge a lead by the topline “total backing” metric alone. Some of the sharpest investors are those with great expertise in one niche who don’t share many deals or have a large following.
Regardless of syndicate size, leads who avoid adverse selection by syndicating all their deals, communicating with backers, and being transparent about why they are investing in a given company build a lot more trust and engagement from backers, and ultimately go on to lead larger, faster syndicates.
EP: What if a savvy angel investor wants access to more capital but doesn’t want to publicly announce their deals on AngelList?
DB: That’s not unusual. A significant portion of syndicates on AngelList are actually entirely private – they are run by the lead solely for the benefit of their own network, and are only visible to users who have been invited. Other leads will share deals only with their ‘funded backers,’ who store their funds on the platform and pre-commit to deals in advance. The syndicates tool serves to facilitate these private deals more efficiently (since we handle wiring of money, creation of legal documents, etc.).
EP: AngelList has several funds on the platform that selectively back certain syndicate deals. What’s their investment strategy?
DB: Yes, we have 3 funds fueled by capital from AngelList backers: the AngelList Select Fund, the AngelList Enterprise Fund, and the AngelList Consumer Fund. The funds will each invest in approximately 100+ of the most promising startups, as selected by an internal fund committee. We also have Maiden Lane, a $25M venture fund that backs a wide range of syndicates, active on the platform.
A fund gives investors the opportunity to back a diversified portfolio of startups with one investment, mitigating risk far more than could be achieved backing individual deals. The funds also get invited to private syndicates that aren’t open to the platform, so they provide access to otherwise unavailable opportunities.
EP: How are syndicates evolving as a product of AngelList?
DB: The AngelList platform has shifted over the past year from being deal-centric to lead-centric; the experience – and increasingly the product features – is about trusting the judgement of lead investors (by way of syndicates) rather than screening and picking companies to invest in entirely on your own. You’ll see that trend continue.
One goal of ours is to make it easier to match angel investors with relevant lead investors whose syndicates fit their interests and investing style. For example, if a new investor on the platform is interested in life sciences startups, we’d try to to proactively match them with some leads more specialized in that field.
EP: What are helpful resources for angels who want to become syndicate leads to determine if it’s the right fit?
DB: We have a landing page for prospective leads at https://angel.co/syndicates/start. You can also contact us for more information.
To explain why our team here at Arena is so bullish on crowdfunding that we tied our model to it, I find it helpful to draw an analogy to another trend I’m passionate about: online education.
The early wave of online degrees and online universities created a stigma around online learning – people associated online degrees with a low bar for quality/prestige and with several well-known for-profit universities who didn’t have students’ best interests at heart. But the educational potential of learning online is extraordinary: data and machine learning improve students’ education in real-time and give professors magnitudes more information with which to improve courses. It can enable top universities – freed from the constraints of physical buildings – to scale their educational experience to everyone who qualifies (anywhere around the world) on a model that actually gets better the more students it includes (thanks to the amassed data).
The first startup I worked for out of college was 2U, Inc., an edtech company that is powering full online master’s degrees for top universities (Yale, Berkeley, Georgetown, USC, etc.). 2U has spearheaded the model of online higher ed that lives up to its true potential and empowers tens of thousands of students. Rather than being third-tier students, the students learning online via their platforms are full equals to peers on campus, with student IDs, campus gym access, 12-student average class size, student organizations, and class gifts to the university when they graduate. Their admissions criteria, learning outcomes, and job placement outcomes match or beat the statistics for on-campus students in the same degree programs.
Over the last couple years, crowdfunding has been making a similar shift from its early incarnations – which were not without some challenges – into a robust ecosystem capable of providing just as much value to entrepreneurs as the best alternative options (offline VC deals). While there weren’t the scandals that the education sector had to navigate, the early days of crowdfunding did raise valid concerns amongst entrepreneurs and investors. One of the biggest concerns was negative signaling associated with crowdfunding: “only people who couldn’t raise money from real investors would try this weird new crowdfunding thing”. There was a self-selection bias among the startups on the platform and the novice investors who participated – they were often participating online because they couldn’t access capital (or for investors, couldn’t access deals) elsewhere. While there were certainly exceptions – Naval Ravikant did bring other notable angels in to participate in some AngelList deals – there were systemic challenges that made crowdfunding unappealing to startups who had other funding options.
Crowdfunding campaigns, similar to Kickstarter campaigns in how they were run, took a lot of time away from the entrepreneur’s focus on running their business: campaigns necessitated cold messaging dozens (or hundreds) of random investors’ profiles, hoping their company’s profile page would “trend” and be featured on the homepage if enough investors took interest. And for all that work, a startup would get very little value from investors in return aside from the money itself. As tech investors know, money has become a commodity and the bare minimum to get into good early stage deals is to bring something else to the table that will help companies further. The challenge with a crowdfunding campaign was that not all of the participating angels offered additional value and those who did usually didn’t have a big enough ownership stake to roll up their sleeves and invest additional time/relationships into the company.
But like new models developed to bring online education into a new era, we are now in a whole new stage of crowdfunding’s evolution. There is zero question in my mind that crowdfunding in 2015 can be just as effective for entrepreneurs (and even more so) than the standard model of venture capital and angel investing. The tipping point was the launch of “syndicates” on AngelList – and now similar models on other crowdfunding platforms like Quire. Syndicates are like angel groups led by one lead investor who spearheads the sourcing and managing of deals in exchange for carry (15-20%, plus AngelList’s 5%) from the other angels who then participate with him or her. The syndicate invests in the startup as one entity and the lead investor (“syndicate lead”) acts as the one liaison, both for paperwork and for leveraging the group’s resources to help the startup with introductions, industry expertise, etc.
The syndicate model incentivizes strong investors to spearhead crowdfunding. Early hype around crowdfunding professed that online platforms would replace VC firms and professional angel investors, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Exceptional entrepreneurs will always want to work with exceptional investors who can help accelerate their business, and since startup investing is a “hits business,” any investor who want to see a return on their money needs to invest in the exceptional entrepreneurs. The path then for many angels is to participate in the deals of their most capable peers. Syndicates financially incentivize (on a performance basis) top investors to include others in their deals, and enable that lead investor to write much bigger checks than they alone can afford to.
Which leads me to a second critical point: good syndicate leads are bringing access to top deals that weren’t going to be on crowdfunding sites otherwise – that’s why backers are willing to pay carry (much like traditional VC Limited Partners would) to participate in deals they source. When top angels and VCs find a startup they believe can become a massive company, they inevitably want to get a large stake in it – incorporating an AngelList syndicate into their investment allows them to do that (instead of a $50,000 check they can invest $500,000 with 20% carry on the $450,000 others contributed). This creates a best of both worlds: entrepreneurs get to work with a top investor who is heavily invested in their success, and backers of the syndicate get to access deals they otherwise wouldn’t see. The entrepreneur can always tap into the contacts and experience of angels in the syndicate if they want to (part of crowdfunding’s promise) but without an obligation to interact with them if they don’t want to.
Crowdfunding syndicates aren’t displacing capable investors, they’re displacing traditional Limited Partners. For a top tier angel investor who wants to graduate into bigger checks and into leading seed rounds, the natural next step has been to raise a 10-year VC fund (with capital from family offices, endowments, and major financial institutions) – look at the rise of “micro-VC” firms. But AngelList syndicates are becoming a more flexible alternative to raising a fund: the platform handles most of the paperwork and the investor only has to do deals when they want to, incorporating the backers they want to have involved in that specific deal. Moreover, AngelList is an increasingly comprehensive financial ecosystem including multiple large fund-of-funds backing the leading syndicates in a similar way to how traditional fund-of-funds back VC firms, and including increasingly large and complex deals (like secondary investments into growth stage companies).
At Arena, we’ve built a hybrid model because it gives more flexibility to our check sizes and gives us a pool of several hundred angels from diverse background who we can tap to provide additional value-add to portfolio companies. We don’t operate our fund and our AngelList syndicate as separate firms – they are locked together and we always invest from both (which ensures neither fund LPs nor syndicate backers are ever pushed out of a great deal). For an entrepreneur, it’s just Arena investing – the fact that our capital comes from two sources doesn’t have to be any different than when a traditional VC firm invests using two funds (some remaining capital from an old fund, plus capital from their new fund). Numerous other VC firms have started incorporating crowdfunding into their investments as well, from Slow Ventures and Rothenberg Ventures on AngelList to betaworks and Index Ventures on Quire, and I’d expect numerous more to do so over the next two years.
Having to publicly share extensive internal metrics on their traction was also an early deterrent to top startups from running crowdfunding campaigns in the past, but many of the deals that syndicates do nowadays aren’t made publicly visible to all investors on AngelList. They are only made visible to approved backers of the syndicate. The syndicate lead can determine with the entrepreneur what information about the startup’s traction should and should not be shared with that group. Plus syndicates led by well-known investors – while they should always provide as much transparency to backers as possible – benefit from having a lead investor whose judgement and due diligence backers trust enough to still invest even if he/she can’t reveal much info at the request of the founder. Syndicates can even be run on an invite-only basis to control information further in the most extreme circumstances.
Crowdfunding has evolved substantially over the last half-decade and the model of AngelList syndicates has enabled it to at last go mainstream among top tier investors (and provide exceptional value to the startups and angels involved). The ecosystem to support syndicates – and the streamlined process for conducting them – becomes more robust each quarter. Over $100MM was invested over AngelList alone in 2014, and if their growth rates continue at the same pace it will be many times that within just the next couple years. The revolutionary impact of crowdfunding won’t be that it replaces professional investors, it will be that it scales the act of investing in startups and provides access to anyone around the world (who qualifies) to invest alongside the top professionals. For entrepreneurs, that’s an ideal situation: the full involvement of the same “superangels” and venture capital firms we respect now, augmented by the option to tap into an additional network of angels who are eager to help your startup if they can.